On a more positive note, a few years back a petition got enough signitures to get to the President with a plan to build the Enterprise, the one from Star Trek not the naval vessel. So keept throwing out those crazy petition ideas!
But lets be serious here a moment the problem is how do you draw a line between indocrination and raising a child?Easy. Beliefs one agrees with is raising the child, and those one disagrees with are forms of indoctrination.No, we've already gone over that. To insist on this is to insist that the definition of terms relies solely on subjective input, and to argue that is to argue that the entire complex of human interaction is meaningless.
No, indoctrination involves rational cul-de-sacs in which people are told not to question or doubt the truth of the lessons, lest they will have already betrayed them/sinned and will go to hell/mommy will spank you.
Interesting...Have you ever tried to raise a child? While I don't have children myself I was around my two neices growing up to realize till about a certain age your favorite expression becomes "Because I said so"...or "You will be punished if you don't listen". You do this because children are not rational being.
All parents accross the world indoctrinate their children to a certain extent. The defination of good parenthood to me is being able to let your children push boundaries and discover things for themselves and to still love them if they disagree with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it's in a box and no one knows if it's dead or alive.Wow. I just quoted Krull in a discussion. I win the internet!And your prize is a cat that asks for cheeseburgers!
And because of that, it can walk through walls.
And with that, limit hit.
Interesting...Have you ever tried to raise a child? While I don't have children myself I was around my two neices growing up to realize till about a certain age your favorite expression becomes "Because I said so"...or "You will be punished if you don't listen". You do this because children are not rational being.
All parents accross the world indoctrinate their children to a certain extent. The defination of good parenthood to me is being able to let your children push boundaries and discover things for themselves and to still love them if they disagree with you.
That's not really the same thing. That's a matter of discipline. I mean if you told your kids that 2+2=5 and if they question that then god will kill a kitten, you're a bad parent (and a liar).
When I was about 5, there was a robin's nest in a tree in our back yard. I really really wanted to climb the tree and see the eggs. My mom told me I shouldn't, because if I did the mother robin might not return to the nest and the babies wouldn't hatch. So I didn't. Seems like actually telling me a good reason not to do something worked for me. I didn't want to be a birdie baby butcher.
That's not really the same thing. That's a matter of discipline. I mean if you told your kids that 2+2=5 and if they question that then god will kill a kitten, you're a bad parent (and a liar).
Agreed
When I was about 5, there was a robin's nest in a tree in our back yard. I really really wanted to climb the tree and see the eggs. My mom told me I shouldn't, because if I did the mother robin might not return to the nest and the babies wouldn't hatch. So I didn't. Seems like actually telling me a good reason not to do something worked for me. I didn't want to be a birdie baby butcher.
Which is actualy a lie...atleast it has been in my experience. As long as you don't touch the nest or disturb it Mama Bird will return. Now your mother probably did not want you climbing the tree because it was dangerous...by itself climbing a tree is dangerous especialy for a 5 year old and climbing by a bird nest is dangerous as Mama bird will atteck. While it might have been a 'good reason' for a sympathic 5 year old...it equated to "Because I said so".
Also...you did not answear the question before...Do you have children yourself? Or in household helping raising children?
Which is actualy a lie...atleast it has been in my experience. As long as you don't touch the nest or disturb it Mama Bird will return. Now your mother probably did not want you climbing the tree because it was dangerous...by itself climbing a tree is dangerous especialy for a 5 year old and climbing by a bird nest is dangerous as Mama bird will atteck. While it might have been a 'good reason' for a sympathic 5 year old...it equated to "Because I said so".
Also...you did not answear the question before...Do you have children yourself? Or in household helping raising children?
No, if I climbed the tree to look at the eggs it would have necessitated touching the nest as it was in the crook of the branch. What 5 year old doesn't touch everything in front of them.
Apologies if I'm not making the scenario clear, but yes my mom didn't want me touching the eggs.
As to your question, no I don't have kids but at this point in my life a lot of my friends do and so I'm around their kids enough. I also was around young cousins a lot, and babysitting them. I always find engaging children by challenging their assumptions about how things work keeps them occupied. YMMV of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found that tweenagers inspire 'because I said so' more. One question leads to another leads to another because they see 'rational discussion' as leading to you having their view, and anything else means you aren't listening to them.
Adults are the same way. Except instead of "because I said so" it becomes "there ought to be a law."
I love big brother. I want him to tell everyone what to do...except me. Because big brother knows better than everyone...except me. Because I and all people who think exactly like me are very smart and everyone else should think like us. Big brother can force them to be like me. I love diversity and tolerance...except for people who don't think like me. Other people must be tolerant of me and people like me but big brother must force people to agree with me. Snark intended.
What snark?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have read them.
You should probably read them again.
Tinker vs. Des Moines upheld that speech can only be censored by a school if it is disruptive to the learning environment. Considering some schools are banning hair styles using that as justification, it's pretty hard to say the students came out ahead.
Well, the school in that link is a charter school, not a public school. Since they are in a nebulous area between public and private schools they can probably get away with a lot more restrictions than public school can.
Also, four days after the news article you linked was published that school reversed its decision.
So the Tinker test still seems to be working quite well at protecting student speech.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O. is also one of the founding decisions that led to the modern usage of metal detectors and bag searches in schools. The decision upheld that a school providing a safe environment can override privacy... which is why so many students today are having their belongings searched.
Yep, the Court believes that schools need to provide a safe environment for children. If necessary, that means they can use metal detectors and bag searches.
It's the exact same reasoning why airport screenings and drunk driver checkpoints are ok. In the balance between privacy and public safety, schools, airports, and highways tilt toward public safety.
Does being a citizen have anything to do with driving on a highway or flying out of an airport? Of course not. Just like being a student under the age of 18 has nothing to do with your citizenship.
And with Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the problem with your New York Times example is that, in this case, it's not the editor saying no. The editor is another student; it's someone outside of the paper's organization stepping in. So it would be more like the U.S. government stepping in and telling the New York times they can't run a story on teen pregnancy.
You really need to go back and reread this one again carefully. Because the rebuttal to what you said here is right in the case.
It wasn't "someone outside the paper's organization stepping in". The paper was 100% owned and controlled by the school. It was paid for 100% by school funds. The people in charge of it were school employees, overseeing enrolled students. It was physically created on school property.
It is in no way, whatsoever, like the government stepping in and telling the NYT what they can and can't write. If you'd read the case, you'd know that.
The fact they can remove citizenship from civilians so easily now is the most troubling aspect of it.
Do you have any idea how few people have had their citizenship stripped from them involuntarily? We're talking hundreds, maybe, with the bulk of it happening during WW2. And in nearly every single case it was a foreign national who came to the USA as an adult and became a citizen, who had their citizenship revoked because they lied on an official document ("No sir, I was never a Nazi" or "Why no, I have never attended a training camp in the Sudan. I've never been to Sudan.")
And even if you get caught doing something bad, the government still has to bring you to trial and prove it. It's not easy by any definition.
Natural-born citizens can't be de-naturalized unless they choose to renounce their citizenship in person at certain locations (embassies) or to certain people (ambassadors), and then formally fill out an oath of renunciation.
It used to be that you would automatically lose your citizenship if you took a policy level position with a foreign government, became an officer in a foreign military, or joined the military of a country hostile to the USA, but most of that was thrown out by the Supreme Court in the late 60s. Some of the "serve in a military hostile to the USA" bits have been maybe kinda sorta brought back post 9/11. Kinda.
You still lose your citizenship if you take a job for a foreign government that requires an oath of office.
You also lose it automatically if an application to become naturalized in another country finalizes. There are some places where you gain citizenship automatically for one reason or another, in these instances you retain your US citizenship. It's when you have to formally request citizenship that you lose your US one.
Also, formal oaths and declarations to foreign governments will lose it.
Oh, and conviction of treason. That'll do it too.
You also lose it automatically if an application to become naturalized in another country finalizes. There are some places where you gain citizenship automatically for one reason or another, in these instances you retain your US citizenship. It's when you have to formally request citizenship that you lose your US one.
That's weird, the US state department's website says the exact opposite.
You also lose it automatically if an application to become naturalized in another country finalizes. There are some places where you gain citizenship automatically for one reason or another, in these instances you retain your US citizenship. It's when you have to formally request citizenship that you lose your US one.That's weird, the US state department's website says the exact opposite.
I think Irontruth has some outdated information.
|
|
I think Irontruth has some outdated information.You also lose it automatically if an application to become naturalized in another country finalizes. There are some places where you gain citizenship automatically for one reason or another, in these instances you retain your US citizenship. It's when you have to formally request citizenship that you lose your US one.That's weird, the US state department's website says the exact opposite.
Yeah. The laws about losing your citizenship for the above mentioned reasons (i.e. Irontruth's post, which is probably drawn from the Immigration and Nationality Act) is still floating around out there. It's just basically been unenforceable for natural born citizens since the late 60s.
The first big case was Afroyim v. Rusk (1967). Which has a very nice Wikipedia article.
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—You also lose it automatically if an application to become naturalized in another country finalizes. There are some places where you gain citizenship automatically for one reason or another, in these instances you retain your US citizenship. It's when you have to formally request citizenship that you lose your US one.That's weird, the US state department's website says the exact opposite.
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
Note, I'm not saying it's ALL cases of gaining citizenship in another country. There's lot of ways to gain it, even if you're US born and don't have parents from another country (though your options aren't huge).
From the State Department website:
However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality.
Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.
For instance, if you're required to take an oath upon gaining citizenship, there may be language in that oath that could trigger this clause. For example:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance
and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty
of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform :noncombatant service in the Armed Forces
of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of
national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
If a country had a similar oath to ours, it could be seen as a renunciation of US citizenship.
|
|
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality
The bolded part of the sentence is why this pretty much never happens.
In order to lose your citizenship the government has to care enough that you've done one of these things to take you to court, and then meet a standard of proof showing that you did one of these things with the intention of also relinquishing your citizenship.
If you go to work for the government of France, no one is going to give a crap.
If you go to work for the government of North Korea, there may be a fuss.
If you go to work for Al-Qaeda, it's probably a safe assumption that you don't want to be an American citizen anymore. But even then there's no guarantee that the government will be able to strip your citizenship.
Look at it this way. Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen, born in New Mexico, who joined Al-Qaeda and became a fairly prominent member. Several members of congress were actively petitioning to have him stripped of his citizenship. He wasn't. He was killed, but he wasn't stripped of his citizenship.
So unless you are naturalized as an adult and you lie on the official form, this pretty much isn't going to happen.
